Posted on 08/12/2008 8:02:26 PM PDT by Graybeard58
I have never said this.
I do not question your or anyone else's conservativism, or the fact that you are acting in what you view as a principled way, consistent with your personal values. (Would that that courtesy would be returned, but that's another story.)
Please understand that I also am acting in what I view as a principled way, consistent with my personal values. For me, that means using my vote in the general election for president as a vote to determine the outcome of the election, not for the purpose of making a personal statement of protest.
Since I intend to use my vote in the general election for president as a vote, I accept that my vote is at once for one candidate and against the other. Binary.
I have said that if a person truly concludes that one candidate---for example, McCain---is worse for the nation, then by all means that person should vote for the other viable candidate, Obambi.
If one wants to put his money where his mouth is, the ONLY way to do what is available to one to do to stop McCain is to vote for Obambi (and vice versa).
As for your complaint that I'm not stating my arguments very sweetly, are you really saying that you would determine how best to use your vote in the general election for president based on your feelings about how various arguments were debated?
Your example about a third party race in Minnesota is irrelevant. We are talking here only about the general election of the President, which, as I pointed out, is subject to three unique "structures" that, taken together, make it impossible for a third party candidate to win the presidency, except by actually or functionally becoming one of the two major national parties.
(Those three "structures" were (1) the fact that the presidential election is winner-take-all; (2) the Electoral College; and (3) if no candidate gets a majority of the EC, the Constitution provides that the House of Representatives -- presently under the "leadership" of the Rats and Pelosi --- decides the election.)
While the Hildabeast, functioning as a sort of third party candidate within the Rat party, may have a shot at taking over the Rat nomination (or forcing a de facto European-style coalition government), there is no one even close to that position in the Republican party.
To win the presidency outside the two major national parties, a third party candidate would have to be:
(1) more popular than the most popular major party nominee, AND--
(2) his support would have to be spread out in such a way that he is more popular than the most popular major party nominee in states that have a combined EC vote sufficient to win.
And if a third party candidate for president did somehow manage to get enough votes to prevent either major party candidate from getting a majority of EC votes [there's that binary operation concept again], oh, goody, all that would happen is that Nancy Pelosi would get to name the next President.
Hello.
In the state of North Carolina, it’s EXTREMELY difficult for a third party to stay on the ballot. To do so, you have one of two choices. 10% of the Governor election or 10% of presidential election.
In other words, if a party OTHER than Democrats and Republicans wants on, they have to go through the process of getting people signed up, and THEN when they’re done, they have to work hard to keep themselves on.
So, no, it’s not just a “protest”, but an honest effort to make a change in the system. That’s not a binary option. Frankly, I don’t think my vote is going to make a difference in North Carolina this year on the Presidential vote. So, why shouldn’t I go forward trying to actually make a real difference in my state (yes, I did live in Minnesota from 94-96, but I’m back in NC).
Believe me, I know about the massive obstacles for a third party. I absolutely disagree with you that having a two-party system is good. We’re seeing the logical conclusion of that mess. We have two parties who have grown closer and closer in political theories. What in the world is good about two parties that are so ideologically similar?
What’s the differences between the two major parties?
Abortion
Dems want it, Repubs don’t.
Taxes
Dems want to raise them. Repubs want to raise them less.
Defense
Dems want little to no defense. Repubs want strong defense.
Spending
Dems want to spend every possible cent plus more. Repubs want to spend like crazy, but a little slower. Not much.
What else is there? I mean, really.
What do I want?
Taxes
Cut massively to the point where we fund what’s constitutionally mandated.
Spending
Cut to what is constitutionally mandated.
Abortion
Cut it, no third trimester, let the states decide for secont and first. Get it out of the feds hands.
Defense
I want it strong. We have a lot of danger out there.
So, where do I go for political relief? Who do I turn to? McCain? He’s not even close to what I want. Certainly better than the other guy, but still. So, what do I do? Work towards having a party that does what I want.
Paul
At least for me, the presidential election is not about "political relief" or even "what I want."
It simply is what it is: a collective hiring action for the next president, given the slate of candidates presented.
I didn't say working for a third party to become, either actually or functionally, one of the two major parties in the U.S. was merely protest.
I said using your vote on Election Day in the presidential election to do anything other but help directly determine the outcome of that race is an act of mere protest.
Two different things.
Work all you want to change or displace one of the two major national parties. However, voting for someone other than the Republican or Rat nominee on Election Day does nothing to further that goal and, moreover, could seriously screw the country for no good reason.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.